Hypothesis is frequently presented as fact, until you argue a person down until to such a point that they innocently declare "Oh, sorry? This was just a hypothesis. It's not what I think, not at all". That's my hypothesis about hypotheses. You may wish to go for a more technical definition.

It's a fact (though a simplified one). Observable and verifiable. Why that happens and mechanics that govern it - that's a theory.

Even in your own article it states clearly that the centre of mass is clearly inside the Sun, for Sun/Earth and also Sun/Jupiter and only could be if Jupiter had Earth's orbit... Same with Earth/Moon, only likely exception seems to be Pluto/Charon.

No theory can ever become a fact in science, but it can be thoroughly supported by research evidence.

This isn't true. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is accepted as fact due to the overwhelming evidence to support it. All science is approached in a way so as to be falsifiable or modified if the evidence indicates it should be.

For example it is accepted as fact that modern humans first appeared around 200k years ago. However, evidence showing that it was actually earlier than that could possibly be found. It just hasn't despite the overwhelming amount of research done in this field. The more evidence fails to falsify it the more solid the fact becomes. This is how all science is structured. Everything can be falsified. Doesn't mean it will be but if the evidence is there it could be.

I realize that to the lay person facts that have the potential to be disproved must not be really facts. Science must be approached this way though so as to leave everything open to improving our understanding and modifying the way we think or approach about a given phenomena.

This isn't true. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is accepted as fact due to the overwhelming evidence to support it. All science is approached in a way so as to be falsifiable or modified if the evidence indicates it should be.

For example it is accepted as fact that modern humans first appeared around 200k years ago. However, evidence showing that it was actually earlier than that could possibly be found. It just hasn't despite the overwhelming amount of research done in this field. The more evidence fails to falsify it the more solid the fact becomes. This is how all science is structured. Everything can be falsified. Doesn't mean it will be but if the evidence is there it could be.

I realize that to the lay person facts that have the potential to be disproved must not be really facts. Science must be approached this way though so as to leave everything open to improving our understanding and modifying the way we think or approach about a given phenomena.

So wouldn't the evidence be the facts and the theory is what can still be, possibly, disproved by uncovering more facts/evidence?

So wouldn't the evidence be the facts and the theory is what can still be, possibly, disproved by uncovering more facts/evidence?

That's a good question but not exactly how it works. We accept certain things as fact because of evidence supporting it. The hypothesis is what becomes fact not the actual data itself.

For example, what is supported as fact is that our bodies are comprised of trillions of individually functioning cells. The fact is that hypothesis not the cells themselves. Microscopes help us physically see the cells, the data or evidence, and confirm the hypothesis as fact.

We can then build on that conclusion and hypothesize that in order for all these individual cells to function as one body, or even a single organ, they would also have to somehow be communication with each other. Through the field of Biochemistry we can actually observe cells using chemicals to do this. The fact is that cells communicate with each other via chemicals not the chemicals themselves.

I don't understand the difference here. So we've observed the earth orbits the sun, right? But we've also observed the universe expanding. Where do you differentiate?

I agree. The expansion of the universe is pretty much an observation, unless we can think of a mechanism by which all galaxies feel a repulsive force respect to our own galaxy that is proportional to the distance between.

I don't understand the difference here. So we've observed the earth orbits the sun, right? But we've also observed the universe expanding. Where do you differentiate?

To play the devil's advocate, we observe the fact of red shift in light from distant galaxies, and explain it with the theory that space is expanding. Though by the same logic we observe as facts stellar aberration/parallax etc, and explain it with the theory that the earth rotates around the sun.

So I don't really get what distinction Netherspark is making here either.

People on the opposite side of the earth would disagree with your perception of up and down; so up and down are not absolute.

Down, relative to earth, is defined as towards the center of the planet. So no, they wouldn't disagree, because things still appear to fall in the same direction relative to their position. It's not like if you dropped an apple in China it would behave differently than it does in Colorado.